Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Serious Political Commentary for Serious Times

Many liberal political commentators have noted the ability of the conservative movement to raise questions of authenticity about liberal candidates. No one is more hip to this than Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, which is repetitive and tiresome and absolutely correct. Grounded in his experience in the 2000 Gore campaign, Somerby details how political coverage is converted into a simple narrative (he calls it novelized), in which candidates are reduced to a few personality traits which are repeated ad infinitum. Invariably, the personal traits of liberal candidates that are identified with liberals are inauthenticity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, shrill moralism and overbearingness. Republicans are given the personality attributes of authenticity, manliness, honesty, directness, and sincerity. By the end of the campaign, Democrats are seen as icky. It explains why Democratic candidates who lose, even those who win like Al Gore, as seen as contemptible and ridiculous, and an embarassment after the election.

What does this have to do with ministry?

Ministers frequently feel under the obligation to be non-partisan in many of their political comments, especially as they move out of their more private conversations into those which are more public. Now, there are three sorts of non-partisan stances. One is that you never say anything about politics. Second is that you say only good things about all parties and all candidates and all potential candidates. The third is that you adopt a cynical critical view that disparages all candidates and parties enough to deflect any criticism that you are an open advocate of one or the other. This is most ministers' strategy, I think.

So the commentary goes like this: "Boy that Bush is a War Criminal, isn't he? But how about that Hillary? What a cold fish, calculating opportunist? She's like John Kerry -- first she was for the war and now she's against it. And I am so glad the Republicans lost the majority on the House, but if I see Nancy Pelosi in an Armani suit and pearls talking about raising the minimum wage, I just gotta laugh out loud." Republicans are sincere, but wrong, and Democrats are just laughable losers. This type of non-serious discourse is acceptable under the prevailing rules of the game, but it completely reinforces a partisan frame, a Republican frame. In a world where policy differences are not always easy to discern and judge, many people choose to vote on the basis of sincerity, honesty and authenticity.

Democrats have better senses of humor than Republicans. I have no empirical evidence of that, but I believe it to be true. We are able to absorb a joke made about one of the foibles of a liberal candidate than Republican is about a conservative. We will laugh when Jon Stewart or Jay Leno makes fun of a Democrat, especially if they point out an insincerity. That is not a two-way street, and maybe it is a sign of mental health, but it is doing the work of the conservatives. Does Rush Limbaugh make fun of John McCain?

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…

Regular Readers and Followers

Popular Posts

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…